The court upheld the municipality's decision to treat the occupancy certificate as effective from the date of Form J, affirming that plausible administrative decisions should not be interfered with by the writ court.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Appeal is at the behest of the writ petitioner and directed against an order dated October 1, 2024 passed in W.P.A. 16619 of 2024.

2. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.

3. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant entered into an agreement to purchase a flat in 9th floor of a building from the private respondent. He submits that till date, appellant did not receive any valid notice to receive possession. He submits that under the terms and conditions of the agreement, liability to pay occupancy charges in respect of the flat concerned commences after the appellant received valid notice for possession. Since the appellant did not receive any valid notice for possession, question of commencement of the liability to pay the occupancy charges by the appellant does not arise.

4. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant draws the attention of the Court to the writ petition. He submits that, the building concerned falls within the jurisdiction of Nagadiganta Industrial Township Authority (hereinafter referred to as the concerned municipality for the sake of convenience). He submits that, the building rules governing the concerned municipality is the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007.

5. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant draws the attention of the Court to the letter dated June 24, 2019 issued by the concerned municipality. He submits that, by such letter, the concerned municipality claimed that, the occupancy certificate issued on May 23, 2018 may be treated an effective from April 17, 2017. According to him, the occupancy certificate can be given a retrospective effect.

6. Drawing the attention of the Court to the various provisions of the Rules of 2007, particularly to Rule 34, 34A and 151 thereof, he submits that, the Rules of 2007 contemplate issuance of a occupancy certificate or in a given case, a partial occupancy certificate. He submits such certificate is to be issued in terms of Form H provided under the Rules of 2007. He points out that Form H of the Rules of 2007 was not issued on April 17, 2017 for the concerned municipality to direct the partial occupancy certificate to be issued with effect from April 17, 2017.

7. Referring to Rule 151 of the Rules of 2007, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that such Rule contemplates issuance of Form H for the purpose of water connection and sewerage to the concerned premises. He submits that the scheme of the Rules of 2007 is such that an occupancy certificate or a partial occupancy certificate as the case may be must precede the issuance of Form H, if not, then at least simultaneously.

8. Referring to the facts of the present case, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the concerned municipality cannot direct treatment of an occupancy certificate from a retrospective date than the date on which it was actually issued. Therefore, he submits that the decision of the municipality dated June 20, 2019 being contrary to the Rules of 2007 should be quashed. Learned Single Judge erred in not doing so.

9. Learned advocate appearing for the concerned municipality relies upon the minutes of the 27th meeting of the Building Committee of the concerned municipality held on March 10, 2017 and contends that the application for partial occupancy certificate for the basement, ground floor till the 18th floors of a basement + ground floor + 21st floor sanctioned, was considered by the Building Committee on such date. He points out that, the Building Committee decided to issue partial occupancy certificate from the basement to the 18th floor of the building on such date.

10. Learned advocate appearing for the concerned municipality submits that, assuming that though not admitting Form H must precede Form J or at least it must be issued simultaneously then also the concerned municipality cannot be f